Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Lily Transportation Corp. v. Royal Institutional Services, Inc.

Massachusetts Appeals Court

Decided August 5, 2005No. 03-P-1263Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partLaurence, J.

(concurring in part and dissenting in part, with whom Green, J., joins). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the finding in the plaintiff’s favor on the c. 93A count should be affirmed because, I conclude, the most crucial of the trial judge’s findings on that issue are unsupported by the record, and because the mundane business bumbling that occurred in this case was not the sort of inequitable marketplace behavior that G. L. c. 93A, § 11, was intended to discourage and punish. The majority correctly quotes the deferential appellate standard ordinarily applicable when reviewing…

2Cases cited114 opinions

  1. Anthony's Pier Four, Inc. v. HBC ASSOCIATESMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1991
  2. Slaney v. Westwood Auto, Inc.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1975
  3. Levings v. Forbes & Wallace, Inc.Massachusetts Appeals Court · 1979
  4. Linkage Corp. v. Trustees of Boston UniversityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1997
  5. Marram v. Kobrick Offshore Fund, Ltd.Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 2004

109 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API